Rossair accident in 2017 - training and checking assessment
the left seat pilot
The pilot in the left seat was the former chief pilot Bruce Hartwig Flight School.
There is an ongoing legal process involving numerous regulatory bodies, certifying agencies, tertiary education funders and Bruce Hartwig Flying School; the substance of which is that BHFS failed to provide govt funded Batchelor of Aviation course modules, falsified records and claimed monies from individual pilots who are contesting the $100,000 bill's they now have.
This action had been going on for years and culminated recently in two weeks in court only to be adjourned for six weeks for more discovery.
Throughout this CASA has been appraised yet is incredibly not involved in the proceedings saying that are not involved.
There is an ongoing legal process involving numerous regulatory bodies, certifying agencies, tertiary education funders and Bruce Hartwig Flying School; the substance of which is that BHFS failed to provide govt funded Batchelor of Aviation course modules, falsified records and claimed monies from individual pilots who are contesting the $100,000 bill's they now have.
This action had been going on for years and culminated recently in two weeks in court only to be adjourned for six weeks for more discovery.
Throughout this CASA has been appraised yet is incredibly not involved in the proceedings saying that are not involved.
The pilot in the left seat was the former chief pilot Bruce Hartwig Flight School.
There is an ongoing legal process involving numerous regulatory bodies, certifying agencies, tertiary education funders and Bruce Hartwig Flying School; the substance of which is that BHFS failed to provide govt funded Batchelor of Aviation course modules, falsified records and claimed monies from individual pilots who are contesting the $100,000 bill's they now have.
This action had been going on for years and culminated recently in two weeks in court only to be adjourned for six weeks for more discovery.
Throughout this CASA has been appraised yet is incredibly not involved in the proceedings saying that are not involved.
There is an ongoing legal process involving numerous regulatory bodies, certifying agencies, tertiary education funders and Bruce Hartwig Flying School; the substance of which is that BHFS failed to provide govt funded Batchelor of Aviation course modules, falsified records and claimed monies from individual pilots who are contesting the $100,000 bill's they now have.
This action had been going on for years and culminated recently in two weeks in court only to be adjourned for six weeks for more discovery.
Throughout this CASA has been appraised yet is incredibly not involved in the proceedings saying that are not involved.
If the legal proceedings you describe are ongoing, how is it that BHFS can advertise a partnership with RMIT and offer “fee help available”? Surely the Education Minister would / should have something to say on the matter if public money is involved?
Moderator
Clearly it would have been the Right seat pilot who was conducting the training of the Left seat pilot.
Was the primary purpose of the flight to undergo a proficiency check of an inductee pilot, or conduct an assessment of the Chief Pilot for the company training and checking role for Cessna 441 aircraft? Was the flight being directed by the pilot in the Right hand seat, or the FOI?
I tend to agree with your response, but I have known of at least one FOI who would disagree with your opinion and his Log Book would prove that.
But the Right seat pilot was "...under assessment for the company training and checking role for Cessna 441 aircraft..." by "...a flying operations inspector from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority."
Was the primary purpose of the flight to undergo a proficiency check of an inductee pilot, or conduct an assessment of the Chief Pilot for the company training and checking role for Cessna 441 aircraft? Was the flight being directed by the pilot in the Right hand seat, or the FOI?
I tend to agree with your response, but I have known of at least one FOI who would disagree with your opinion and his Log Book would prove that.
Was the primary purpose of the flight to undergo a proficiency check of an inductee pilot, or conduct an assessment of the Chief Pilot for the company training and checking role for Cessna 441 aircraft? Was the flight being directed by the pilot in the Right hand seat, or the FOI?
I tend to agree with your response, but I have known of at least one FOI who would disagree with your opinion and his Log Book would prove that.
This is how the activity being undertaken was described to me; however I have no direct knowledge, and given the bizarre nature of the aforementioned, hope to be corrected.
If it were the case:
1. How can it be argued that either Pilot at the controls were qualified to be conducting the activity being undertaken?
2. If CASA were unable to provide a qualified SME to act as candidate occupying a control seat and assuming PIC responsibilities for the conduct of the assessment, why would you not engage the services of a suitably qualified industry Flight Examiner to occupy the candidate control seat and act as pseudo candidate under test? CASA Inspectorate then safely occupies an observers seat.
This would not only strike me as the only legal option but certainly the safest.
Last edited by FOI; 19th Jul 2018 at 23:00.
If CASA were unable to provide a qualified SME to act as candidate occupying a control seat and assuming PIC responsibilities for the conduct of the assessment, why would you not engage the services of a suitably qualified industry Flight Examiner to occupy the candidate control seat and act as pseudo candidate under test? CASA Inspectorate then safely occupies an observers seat.
I am led to believe (but I am in no way certain) that there was training booked for the Chief Pilot with an industry expert flight examiner to get some C&T principles covered off. This was cancelled when the assessing FOI offered to manage the assessment as it was flown to save Rossair some time and money. I know SG was a CASA SME on type but I also have a feeling he was himself an ex Rossair pilot (not sure if this is correct however).
FOI is absolutely right, and I would guess future litigants may well press this point. CASA working outside the envelope, so to speak.
The days when CASA Inspectors could make decisions in the field to help operators are gone forever. Much as some of the 'good guys' in CASA (there are a few) would like to be helpful, the fully legal option is the only choice.
Expect yet more CASA limitations on how training can be conducted, and by whom, to follow this tragedy.
The days when CASA Inspectors could make decisions in the field to help operators are gone forever. Much as some of the 'good guys' in CASA (there are a few) would like to be helpful, the fully legal option is the only choice.
Expect yet more CASA limitations on how training can be conducted, and by whom, to follow this tragedy.
I could nominate more than one gung-ho FOI, (and their industry disciples) to whom the various asymmetric training fatalities mean nothing, and who are still demanding actions/operations, for which the aircraft is not certified, and/or directly contrary to instructions in the AFM.
These individuals are quite convinced that CASA are legally exempt from limitations imposed by certification, ie: in the AFM, and have the "authority" to impose wide variations to AFM imposed SOPs, by "instructions" in the Operations Manual/FCTM (by whatever name).
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I put this exact question to CASA shortly after the accident. My partner was Martin Scott, the Chief Pilot flying from the right hand seat that day. CASA's response was that if they used pseudo students it made it too easy for the person being assessed. They also stated that it is perfectly acceptable practice for CASA to be assessing the right hand seat pilot, whilst that pilot is assessing the left hand seat pilot.
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been part of a check recently which involved CASA, it seems they have adopted this approach somewhat. There was a strict stipulation that there were to be no engine failure emergencies conducted below 1,000 feet AGL and I believe this was a reaction to this particular accident.
I put this exact question to CASA shortly after the accident. My partner was Martin Scott, the Chief Pilot flying from the right hand seat that day. CASA's response was that if they used pseudo students it made it too easy for the person being assessed. They also stated that it is perfectly acceptable practice for CASA to be assessing the right hand seat pilot, whilst that pilot is assessing the left hand seat pilot.
Im frankly staggered by the galactically “basic” rationale relayed to you by a statutory authority. I sincerely hope this triggers an appropriate investigation beyond that of simply the accident itself.
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you FOI. I have to say that I have been staggered by many things since this accident occurred. My only aim is to ensure this never happens to anyone else, but it is proving a difficult task.
My only aim is to ensure this never happens to anyone else, but it is proving a difficult task.
Their response was that they have to recreate an engine failure as closely as possible to the real thing
Queen Air engine failure.
Anyone practice bleeding?
does chill the blood though. Too graphic for me Mr Megan, on a full stomach.)
To succeed, you have to overcome a very resilient and enduring "culture" in CASA and the "industry", that no history of fatal accidents in asymmetric training seems to dent.
Sadly, the alleged need for realism includes the "realism" of people dying in the name of simulating realism.
CASA prints various "educational material", then "some" FOIs "informally" makes it abundantly clear that "V1 cuts" (in an aeroplane where a V1 performance simply does not exist) will continue to be conducted, as will landings with one engine feathered, as opposed to zero thrust. The "educational material" will be ignored.
CASA and its predecessors are not wholly to blame, there is no shortage of individuals in industry, whose combination of over-confidence and under education and experience make them impervious to the avoidable risks they demand "must be taken" in training.
The bottom line ---- when was the last fatality as a result of a critical engine failure in a light twin, versus a fatality in training for the event. Yes, there have been several, spread over many years, but a fraction of the number in "training".
And ATSB decline to properly investigate, when they have the chance, thus once again making no useful contribution to improving air safety outcomes.
Tootle pip!!
ATSB decline to properly investigate, when they have the chance, thus once again making no useful contribution to improving air safety outcomes.
ChoppaGirl,
impervious to the avoidable risks they demand "must be taken" in training.
The bottom line ---- when was the last fatality as a result of a critical engine failure in a light twin, versus a fatality in training for the event. Yes, there have been several, spread over many years, but a fraction of the number in "training".
And ATSB decline to properly investigate, when they have the chance, thus once again making no useful contribution to improving air safety outcomes.
Tootle pip!!
impervious to the avoidable risks they demand "must be taken" in training.
The bottom line ---- when was the last fatality as a result of a critical engine failure in a light twin, versus a fatality in training for the event. Yes, there have been several, spread over many years, but a fraction of the number in "training".
And ATSB decline to properly investigate, when they have the chance, thus once again making no useful contribution to improving air safety outcomes.
Tootle pip!!
CASA prints various "educational material", then "some" FOIs "informally" makes it abundantly clear that "V1 cuts" (in an aeroplane where a V1 performance simply does not exist) will continue to be conducted, as will landings with one engine feathered, as opposed to zero thrust. The "educational material" will be ignored.
For many years in the late 1940 and 1950's the RAAF practiced engine failures after take off in the Avro Lincoln four engine bomber and other twins as well as practice feathered landings. Then circa 1953 a Lincoln was carrying out a practice asymmetric landing at Townsville with No 1 engine prop feathered when it began to drift towards the side of the runway due crosswind.
The instructor attempted to go-around on three engines but got into Vmca difficulties and the Lincoln crashed and burnt. Luckily, the crew of three escaped before the aircraft was destroyed by fire. Five years later at Townsville a similar accident happened to a Lincoln during a practice feathered landing. This time a new pilot was being checked out by an instructor. Again No 1 prop was feathered. The aircraft bounced heavily on touch down and the instructor took control to go-around on three engines.
Same old problem when the Lincoln ran into a Vmca situation and control was lost, crashing near the then civil terminal building. The crew were lucky to escape before the aircraft blew up.
Soon after, the RAAF banned practice feathered landings and after that zero thrust throttle closures were mandated for practice engine failures after take off and for practice asymmetric landings. The DCA did not follow suit and continued to permit simulated engine failures in civilian registered light piston twins by use of mixture lever cuts after lift off. In fact it is not unknown for some instructors to cut the mixture on piston twin during the take off roll for practice abort. Instant correct corrective action is required if that happens since no delay in closing the throttle of the operating engine is vital to prevent loss of control on the runway.
Finally, it is worth studying the ATSB report on the 2003 accident at Camden NSW to a Duchess where the instructor cut the mixture at lift off during a touch and go.
That aircraft crashed and caught fire and the instructor lost his life. Both pilots were highly experienced former airline pilots. See:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...aair200300224/
Last edited by Centaurus; 21st Jul 2018 at 05:28.